Copyleft and Free software (was re: Feedback on Computer Crime)

[Peter da Silva]

(this is crossposted to alt.sources.d purely to get it distributed past a
 news bottleneck. It seems a reasonable topic of discussion, nevertheless)

In article <9008141435.AA21010 at stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> de5 at STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) writes:
> Our idea is to require the distributor of the proprietary
> executable to make the source to our library available along with
> the object files for the rest of the application.  The user could
> then recompile the library (perhaps with changes) and relink to get
> a usable program.  This way the user will, in some sense, get the
> benefit of the free status of the library within the executable.

Those seem perfectly reasonable terms, and if the GPL was modified to allow
for free use of libraries I, for one, would drop most of my objections to
it. I would probably continue to use less restrictive licenses on my own
freeware, simply because I have different goals.

I realise that this is still up in the air, but if you feel like answering
questions:

What about things like the Bison skeleton? Does that constitute a library?

What about GNU getopt, and other already-released software?

How about libraries distributed as part of another GPL-protected program,
but are useful in their own right?

[ the spectre of unfair competition ]
> Why, indeed?  Isn't that a risk in any venture?  Perhaps you could add
> value to the freeware.  You could fix bugs, add enhancements, provide
> support, etc.

That can only go so far. When you have payments on a major loan you took
out to finance development you can be undercut quite substantially, and your
competitors can still do all the value-added things you're trying to beat
them with.
-- 
NAME: Peter da Silva.   WOLF: `-_-'
PSTN: +1 713 274 5180.         'U`
DNS: peter at ferranti.com
BITNET: Oavzgsz at AcadiaU.CA